Unlike the car question, where you can assume the car is at home and so the most probable answer is to drive, with the machines it gets complicated. Since the question doesn't specify if each machine makes one part or if they depend on each other (which is pretty common for parts production). If they are in series and the time to first part is different than time to produce 5 parts, the answer for 100 machines would be the time to produce the first part. Where if each machine is independent and takes 5 minutes to produce single part, the time would be 5 minutes.
Theory of mind won’t help you answering this question. It is obviously an underspecified question (at least in any contexts where you are not actively designing/thinking about some specific industrial process). As such theory of mind indicates that the person asking you is either not aware that they are asking an underspecified question, or are out to get you with a trick. In the first case it is better to ask clarifying question. In the second case your choosen answer depend on your temperament. You can play along with them, or answer an intentionally ridiculous answer, or just kick them in the shin to stop them messing with you.
There is nothing “mathematical” about any of this though.
>As such theory of mind indicates that the person asking you is either not aware that they are asking an underspecified question, or are out to get you with a trick.
Context would be key here. If this were a question on a grade school word problem test then just say 100, as it is as specified as it needs to be. If it's a Facebook post that says "We asked 1000 people this and only 1 got it right!" then it's probably some trick question.
If you think it's not specified enough for a grade school question, then I would challenge you to come up with a version that's specified rigorously enough for any sufficiently picky interviewee. (Hint: This is not possible)
>There is nothing “mathematical” about any of this though.
Finding the correct approach to solve a problem specified in English is a mathematical skill.
> If this were a question on a grade school word problem test then just say 100
Let me repeat the question again: "If 5 machines can produce 5 parts in 5 minutes, how long will it take for 100 machines?" Do you think that by adding 95 more machines they will suddenly produce the same 5 parts 95 minutes slower?
What kind of machine have you encountered where buying more of them the ones you already had started working worse?
> then I would challenge you to come up with a version that's specified rigorously enough for any sufficiently picky interviewee.
This is nonsense. The question is under specified. You don't demonstrate that something is underspecified by formulating a different well specified question. You demonstrate it by showing that there are multiple different potentially correct answers, and one can't know which one is the right one without obtaining some information not present in the question.
Let me show you that demonstration. If the machines are for example FDM printers each printing on their own a benchy each, then the correct answer is 5 minutes. The additional printers will just sit idle because you can't divide-and-conquer the process of 3d printing an object.
If the machines are spray paint applying robots, and the parts to be painted are giant girders then it is very well possible that the additional 95 paint guns make the task of painting the 5 girders quasi-instantaneous. Because they would surround the part and be done with 1 squirt of paint from each paint gun. This classic video demonstrates the concept: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/vGWoV-8lteA
This is why the question is under specified. Because both 1ms and 5 minutes are possibly correct answers depending on what kind of machine is the "machine". And when that is the case the correct answer is neither 1ms nor 5 minutes, but "please, tell me more. There isn't enough information in the question to answer it."
Note: I'm struggling to imagine a possible machine where the correct answer is 100 minutes. But I'm sure you can tell what kind of machine you were thinking of.
It's not theory of mind, it's an understanding of how trick questions are structured and how to answer one. Pretty useless knowledge after high school - no wonder AI companies didn't bother training their models for that
It's not a trick question. It has a simple answer. It's literally impossible to specify a question about real world objects without some degree of prior knowledge about both the contents of the question and the expectation of the questioner coming into play.
The obvious answer here is 100 minutes because it's impossible to perfectly encapsulate every real life factor. What happens if a gamma ray burst destroys the machines? What happens if the machine operators go on strike? Etc, etc. The answer is 100.
Kinda related question, but is code really just a math? Is it possible to express things like user input, timings, inteerupts, error handling, etc. as math?
I would slightly sort of disagree that code is just math when you really boil it down, however, if you take a simple task, say, printing hello world to the output, you could actually break that down into a mathematical process. You can mathematically say at time T value of O will be the value of index N of input X, so over a period of time you eventually get "hello world" as the final output
Howeveeerrr.. its not quite math when you break down to the electronics level, unless you go really wild (wild meaning physics math). take a breakdown of python to assembly to binary that flips the transistors doing the thing. You can mathematically define that each transistor will be Y when that value of O is X(N); btw sorry i can't think of a better way to define such a thing from mobile here. And go further by defining voltages to be applied, when and where, all mathematically.
In reality its done in sections. At the electronic level math defines your frequency, voltage levels, timing, etc; at the assembly level, math defines what comparisons of values to be made or what address to shift a value to and how to determine your output; lastly your interpreter determines what assembly to use based on the operations you give it, and based on those assembly operations, ex an "if A == B then C" statement in code is actually a binary comparator that checks if the value at address A is the same as the value at address B.
You can get through a whole stack with math, but much of it has been abstracted away into easy building blocks that don't require solving a huge math equation in order to actually display something.
You can even find mathematical data among datasheets for electronic components. They say (for example) over period T you cant exceed V volts or W watts, or to trigger a high value you need voltage V for period T but it cannot exceed current I. You can define all of your components and operations as an equation, but i dont think its really done anymore as a practice, the complexity level of doing so (as someone not building a cpu or any ic) isnt useful unless youre working on a physics paper or quantum computing, etc etc
I wonder, if these problems aren't Ubuntu fault, since it forces snap version of Firefox on you. I had Firefox crashing repeatedly on me with the snap version. Maybe switching to Firefox apt repo would help? (I tried the repo, but before I had chance to test it properly, I found I could use Debian instead of Ubuntu and reinstalled immediately.)
When it comes to woodworking, I quite enjoyed watching some of the videos of Granpa Amu on youtube. When I seen him make table from one piece of wood, it felt like magic.
For this case, it might be easier to package the script using pyinstaller. That way, she can just run it. Packaging it that way is more work on your side though.
I wish. If you live in any country that uses more than ASCII, then certainly not since forever. I mean, just for my language there were 7 different encodings (according to Wikipedia, possibly more) before Unicode era. When you want to read these it's solvable problem, but still it is extra work to deal with it. Now that we have UTF-8 as de-facto standard, it is much better, but there are still problems. Like when you use Japanese and it gets displayed as Chinese (same characters are different glyphs depending on language).
I have been working in my spare time on Japanese vocabulary learning app and just yesterday finally convinced myself to publish the sources: https://github.com/d3nzil/gaku
Be warned it's in early stages, difficult to use and code is big ball of mud. But the basic functionality works, so maybe it will be already useful for someone. And I have been using it and working on it consistently, so hopefully it'll only get better.
You’ll get some eye rolls from people when you bring that up for Sally.
But there are several names that used to be considered male but are now female, like Leslie and Marion. I don’t think I’ve ever met a man name Marion, but you still occasionally run into a Leslie.
It would be interesting to start using Leslie for this little logic puzzle and see how that affects people’s answers.
Usually having index.html in /now would behave as if the /now was the page. Other index.extension files (like index.php) might also work depending on the server configuration.
You mean like /now/index.html. Yeah, that could work! Thanks!
But "/now.html" feels "cleaner" to me. I know others might disagree.
If this now thing could support just "/now.html" or even "/now" redirecting to "/now.html", that would be swell! Maybe they already do support it? Hoping to learn from the community if these alternative paths are supported.
/now is cleaner in practice, because it's shorter, matches a (nascent, proposed) "standard", and hides the implementation details.
File path /now/index.html is a fine way to expose your content at /now ... Most webservers will default to config that allows this.
You could replace it in the future with a gigantic web app that is wired into your brain implant to retrieve realtime status. If you use /now.html, you would have to fight the framework to lie about the implementation details, instead of just not specifying them in the first place.
You could also configure your webserver to serve /home/carbonatom/webstuff/dereks-idea/now/new-version-2025.html as /now, if you like. These are the kind of implementation details that a good URL will hide (even if the specific example is a terrible case, the equivalent does happen sometimes!).
What do you want out of support? Listings on the nownownow.com site seem to be done manually, so it shouldn't matter what you make the path if that's what you're going for.
